Congratulations! Your comment on A two-year-old resolves a moral dilemma has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

I always thought this 'problem' was bullshit - not because I dreamed of being some special snowflake 'outside the box' little shit who just wants to bypass the difficulty in question, but because the answer is so obvious. If you have perfect certainty that you can either save 1 life or 5 lives, then that's the same as choosing to kill 1 person or 5 persons. Perfect certainty makes inaction as culpable as action. It's only in reality, where there's uncertainty, that you can balk at taking action.

In the same way I find the moral dilemma of killing Hitler as a baby to be ridiculous. If you, as a time traveler from 2016, balk at the idea of going back to 1889 to kill baby Hitler, but you're fine with going back to 1939 to kill adult Hitler and maybe prevent WW2, then you essentially want hundreds of thousands of people to die in concentration camps just to make you feel good about your murderous action. Ridiculous.

Due to your avatar i thought you would be quite pleased with this child http://videosift.com/video/A-two-year-old-resolves-a-moral-dilemma

Well that looks utterly stupid.

So... they have bug UAVs and hummingbird UAVs, yet they're targeting the bad guys with antiques?

Also, it's not like this is some imaginary moral dilemma. US forces can, have, and will target innocent civilians WITHOUT confirmation that their actual target is on site. Hell they've attacked wedding parties and hospitals just for shits and giggles (well not quite, but "because some Afghan guy said so" is close enough).

FWIW, I've always hated the "moral dilemma" posed in the video. It makes no sense. They should have spent more time thinking on that thought exercise... I can't honestly answer a question that makes no sense at all.

*brain

charliem - you've exactly hit on the problem with this "moral question", though in a way I believe most folks would never think of.

I remember the first time this I heard this about twenty years ago. My immediate reaction was yes on 1, no on 2, because if I flip the track switch there is an overwhelming likelihood the train will follow the secondary track and kill one person, but in the second scenario, there is no such guarantee. Every time I've pointed this out to the questioner, they try some hand-waving physics to convince me that it will work, but ultimately fail. And I'm convinced that the vast majority of people also understand this - that there really is no guarantee of derailing the train by pushing a fat person onto the tracks - and that is why most people respond the same way.

This is a very old "moral dilemma" question designed to elucidate human nature, but as charliem points out, it is completely false and thus completely invalid.

The questions are invalid in terms of interpreting the answers of respondents. On the other hand, using it as a means of probing the neurological basis of morality with fMRI is probably useful, since the relevant systems will likely be engaged regardless of the physical anomalies.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'hitman, philosophy, moral dilemma, metaphysical, elements of ethics, kant' to 'hitman, philosophy, moral dilemma, metaphysical, elements of ethics, immanuel kant' - edited by xxovercastxx

@rbar in your examples, force is used to remove a person's choices, but then you equate that with bad choices. Bad choices which, in a free market, would not involve the use of force. So, are bad choices just the same as no choice or do we need to make a more refined distinction?

- No choice => Coercion, someone is denying you something you have a right to (like your life).

- Bad choice => No coercion, the choice is just shitty.

The classic example of "exploitation" is a terribly low paying job, is there any coercion going on? We can always concoct a moral dilemma where a man must feed his malnourished family, thus the employer ends up with the terrifying power of life and death over the poor worker and his family. Holy Coercion, Batman!

Would it make sense if I accused an American citizen of coercing children in Uganda for not donating to a charity that saves lives over there? Blame a homeless man's hunger on someone denying him a handout? Accuse an employer of stealing money from a worker if they paid exactly what was agreed upon beforehand, but paid less than what we think the worker "deserved"?

In a free market, you want to reduce the "choice remover" that is coercion. Whatever's left, nobody is being denied what is theirs by right, so they're all choices. It's up to the person doing the choosing to label them good or bad.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

So did little Karl kill Randall in the book? It would be a great plot point: he fucks up by letting the zombie go and wants to redeem himself for dales death by killing Randall. It also gets the group off the hook from having to make a tough moral dilemma, much like Shane did when he let the zombies out of the barn.


Since you seem to insist on letting yourself be despoiled, I'll tell you:

Karl kills Shane in the book. And pretty early on too. Simply for messing with his dad.

DFT: Read the effing books.

So did little Karl kill Randall in the book? It would be a great plot point: he fucks up by letting the zombie go and wants to redeem himself for dales death by killing Randall. It also gets the group off the hook from having to make a tough moral dilemma, much like Shane did when he let the zombies out of the barn.

I merely stated my opinion on what I view as an easy moral dilemma. No need to call me names. You seem to base your argument on freedom. That's exactly what I do too: The freedom of males to make their own choices regarding cosmetic surgery on their genitals. It seems to me you value the freedom of the parents higher. I can see where you're coming from, but to me the individual concerned always weighs heavier in such moral arguments.

Let it be known that I don't want a ban on circumcition per se. If someone wants to make that decision for themselves when he comes of age, for religious reasons or otherwise, I have no problem with it. My problem is when someone else (in this case parents) removes irreversibly the opportunity to choose yourself.
>> ^VoodooV:

Fortunately for the rest of the world, you don't get to judge, oh arbiter of what is good and bad. This reinforces why I'm an independent. Both left and right have their lunatic fringe. and arbitrating circumcision is definitely lunatic.
and xxovercast, I never said YOU were pro-ban. nice try though. This perfectly demonstrates the hypocrisy of both left and right. pro-choice for certain things....not so much other things. You don't get to cherry pick what choices you approve of and which ones you don't. It's all ok or none of it is.
As I have repeatedly stated, Unless you can show that the majority of those who have had circumcision without consent are under some sort of significant duress or their lives are significantly been infringed upon. You've got nothing.

^thanks archwaykitten

I think that addressed the burden of proof succinctly.

As to this:
Essentially, you haven't solved the problem, you've only traded one moral dilemma for another because now the fetus has MORE rights than the mother. No other human being could be said to possess the right to take away another individual's personal freedom or so infringe upon their life.

This, once again, cuts both ways. No other human is so dependent on another for it's continued survival and well being. More over, the personal freedoms of the mother are NOT being revoked or impinged at the choice of the child, but by those of either the mother or in extraordinary circumstances a rapists choice. Either way, why is the child to pay for the crimes of a rapist or the choices of the mother?

Everything comes back to when life begins, after that laws respecting human life trump every other consideration out there.

@bcglorf

After the point you consider a fetus a human being with full rights, you have the same degree of moral obligation to defend that human's right to life as with any other person.

Right, I agree--I suppose you'd be morally obligated to try to end abortion if that was the conclusion you came to. But I guess what I'm saying is, if you're going to make that judgment and you're going to take it to the next level and try to interfere in other peoples' lives and force them bear children they don't want and care for them for the next 18 years, then the burden of proof is on you to show that your judgment is indeed the correct one. And I think that's the problem pro-lifers are facing--the scientific evidence so far actually seems against that view.

But even if you could prove your judgment (i.e. a fetus is a human being with full rights) to the satisfaction of most people, it raises another problem--a fetus would only have the same rights as another human, not more rights. It could be argued that to force a mother to carry an unwanted child is tantamount to slavery. Basically the state would be forcing her to put her health at risk (complications due to pregnancy and childbirth are not uncommon, even with modern health care--just ask my wife who spent a large part of her first pregnancy hospitalized), stop working for a time, spend an inordinate amount of money on health care and other costs caring for the unwanted baby....

Essentially, you haven't solved the problem, you've only traded one moral dilemma for another because now the fetus has MORE rights than the mother. No other human being could be said to possess the right to take away another individual's personal freedom or so infringe upon their life.

In an ideal world, of course, there would be no complications due to pregnancy, all women would be fully compensated while on maternity leave, and all unwanted children would be placed with loving families that would care deeply for them and raise them as their own. But we clearly don't live in an ideal world.

That's why I believe that all we can do is choose the least immoral path. To me, that path is clear--keep abortions legal. Do everything in your power to make them a means of last resort and hopefully someday they won't be needed anymore.

You are free to believe differently. But if you are going to take the next step and try to force those beliefs on other people, then that's something else entirely. Until you solve the problems I mentioned above (proving a fetus is a human being as opposed to just believing it, compensating mothers who are forced to carry to term, making sure unwanted children will not be abused or neglected, etc.) you can't abolish abortion and claim to be taking the moral high-ground.

@xxovercastxx

I don't know if there are multiple universes. It's a fun idea, but at this point it's just an idea with no supporting evidence. At least, I'm not aware of any. It's not a topic I keep up on. I lack a belief in multiple universes at this point. Immaterialism falls into the same boat.

Apparently, if the other Universes had different physics, it would be impossible to detect them anyway. So to me it's a fairly useless supposition. So, just one Universe and nothing but the material.

I subscribe to the big bang theory, fully aware that it leaves plenty of questions to be answered. There are always more questions. Anything prior to singularity is a total mystery and I imagine it will be that way for a very long time.

Time and space had a beginning at the big bang, so really it would always be impossible to measure it. The most interesting thing is that the Universe sprang into existence from no prior material. It's creation ex nihilo..IE, creation from nothing. Which funnily enough happens to uniquely support the judeo-christian belief.

How does something from from nothing? Only nothing can come from nothing..So therefore, if time and space had a beginning, there must be something outside of time and space which created it. These have always been identified as Gods attributes, of existing outside of time and space in an eternal continuim with no beginning or end. Isn't a transcendent creator necessitated here?

I do not feel consciousness is as fancy or magical as many people do. We seem to be getting along just fine with the model that it's all just physical processes in the brain. There's still room for a surprise, sure, but until that surprise comes I'm ok with a physical model.

How do you respond to the argument that, if we're simply biological machines then all of our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions which therefore cannot be trusted? Without an independent existence from the body, IE the soul, this seems to be the conclusion you're left with.

Morality is interesting. In practice, it really comes down to consensus and I feel it's largely based on emotions. It's fortunate that the vast majority of people have very similar feelings about what is or isn't moral, at least when it comes to the big ones (murder, theft, honesty, slavery, etc). I don't think anything that doesn't harm other people is immoral, which is where you and I part ways on the subject.

Well, how would you explain the uniformity of morality that we see in all cultures, past and present. It would have to be something explained by biology, except there is no biological imperative except selfishness. In regards to whether thoughts can be harmful..well, consider for example the commandment not to covet. It's a thought crime because it leads to breaking all of the other commandments. Coveting leads to envy, envy to desire, desire to larceny, murder, lying, stealing and adultry. It's entirely rational, nipping problems in the bud before they even begins.

Homosexuality, for example, poses no moral dilemmas for me because what people do to themselves and/or to other willing participants doesn't harm anyone else.

Bestiality, on the other hand, harms animals and it's also really fucking weird. This is not acceptable behavior to me. Mind you, it's the act that crosses the line. I don't think people who find themselves sexually attracted to animals are immoral so long as they don't act on it. All of us has some strange shit on our minds from time to time and I'm not ok with prosecuting thought crimes with either earthly or celestial judges.

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..if it's just your feelings. If that's the case, some people feel that raping people is just great..doesn't that make them morally justified in your world view?

Putting aside, for a moment, your apparent war on etymology, what if you believe the universe is a simulation running on a computer? What if you believe it was created by an advanced alien race? According to you, these people would be theists.

Well, you could say the Universe started 5 seconds ago and all of your memories are false. And if the Universe was simulated, the question is meaningless..but point taken..the better question is..Was the Universe deliberately Created by supreme being?

>> ^shinyblurry:

Okay, I'll bite. Since you don't want to discuss what the bible says, I'll delve into your world. Do you believe there is only one Universe, many Universes or infinite Universes? Do you only believe in material reality, or do you think there could be other dimensions or planes of existence that transcend it? Basically, what is your cosmology/model of reality? How do you think consciousness works? Do you believe in morality and how do you determine what it is?


I don't know if there are multiple universes. It's a fun idea, but at this point it's just an idea with no supporting evidence. At least, I'm not aware of any. It's not a topic I keep up on. I lack a belief in multiple universes at this point. Immaterialism falls into the same boat.

I subscribe to the big bang theory, fully aware that it leaves plenty of questions to be answered. There are always more questions. Anything prior to singularity is a total mystery and I imagine it will be that way for a very long time.

I do not feel consciousness is as fancy or magical as many people do. We seem to be getting along just fine with the model that it's all just physical processes in the brain. There's still room for a surprise, sure, but until that surprise comes I'm ok with a physical model.

Morality is interesting. In practice, it really comes down to consensus and I feel it's largely based on emotions. It's fortunate that the vast majority of people have very similar feelings about what is or isn't moral, at least when it comes to the big ones (murder, theft, honesty, slavery, etc). I don't think anything that doesn't harm other people is immoral, which is where you and I part ways on the subject.

Homosexuality, for example, poses no moral dilemmas for me because what people do to themselves and/or to other willing participants doesn't harm anyone else.

Bestiality, on the other hand, harms animals and it's also really fucking weird. This is not acceptable behavior to me. Mind you, it's the act that crosses the line. I don't think people who find themselves sexually attracted to animals are immoral so long as they don't act on it. All of us has some strange shit on our minds from time to time and I'm not ok with prosecuting thought crimes with either earthly or celestial judges.